"You must hate breaking that tid-bit, because it's a fallacy. Let's do some rudimentary math: Most Americans would presumably constitute 51% of the adult population, and since half the adult population didn't vote at all in the 2000 election, and since Al Gore received at least 50% of the vote in that election, and since pollsters only survey potential voters, I'd say that George W. Bush has been receiving roughly a 25-30% approval rating through-out his tenure in office. That is irrefutably a minority of Americans; not a majority (most)."

#1 the results of the 2000 election which Gore lost according to the US Constitution are irrelevant to his job approval rating as a president.

#2 pollsters often take a scientific representive sample, not just of potential voters, when doing job approval polling. Even if that was not the case, its rather presumptious of you to claim that all non-potential voters disaprove of the way Bush is doing his job. If anything, an even greater majority of non-voters probably approve of the way Bush is handling things. Non-voters typically feel the country is doing just fine and have no compelling reason to vote, which is part of the reason that Gore was defeated in 2000 during one of the best economic times in decades. Any event, the polls are accurate to a certain degree.

"Now, if we presume that a majority of those giving Bush a complimentary approval rating have friends/family/loved ones fighting in Afganistan/Iraq they would be callous, pessimistic, bastards if they disapproved of their friends/family/loved ones leader. After all, how often do we hear people harangue the person who controls our destinies? Therefore, I'd say that if we never INVADED Iraq, or Afganistan, Bush's true approval rating would lose even more weight and fall to the low-20% range."

That is just simply wrong. Read a little about the Vietnam War.

"-He better raise a lot of money, because his propaganda is becoming a tad bit mundane."

"---Can he buy the 2004 election? Tune in next year...same lame time, same lame country."

George Bush will win or lose the next election because of how the voters feel about the job he has done on the economy and foreign policy, plain and simple.

The kiss on Dubbya's face came from the wealthy, who's interests he serves. The black eye came from the poor, underpaid and underserved who lose every time he opens his mouth. "BRING 'EM ON!" I couldn't believe my ears when I heard his challenge to harm our soldiers. Did he really think the families of the dead and wounded would appreciate it?
I fear that if he is allowed to do as he pleases, in the end we'll all be dust, circling the globe as nuclear winter ends all life on our beautiful planet. Pre-emptive attack? You bet!

I certainly do, my last post was in response to your questions and statements on the reliability or validity of Bush's approval ratings. Why do you ask? Is there something I said that you have a question about or are confused about?

I think it is interesting how everybody is sitting around spouting generalities instead of focusing on the topic at hand. Yeah, why don't we just sit around a call Bush, CLinton, etc. names instead of looking at their performance objectively. Just take a look at the polls of historians posted here (look at my earlier posting for a link to the rankings). I mean, Warren G. Harding and Jimmy Carter are 2 guys who in retrospect did a pretty awful job even though contemporary opinion might suggest otherwise. BTW, Harding was very well liked by the public. AT the top of the list, you have people like FDR, Teddy, LBJ, and Eisenhower. All these men had differing political philosophies, but further OBJECTIVE study shows that ,hey, they did a pretty good job at furthering the interests of the U.S. It appears that the best time to really gauge the greatness of a president is years after holding office. According to the list, Clinton and Bush I are mediocre; who knows, maybe in the next decade after people have the opportunity to see their performances from less colored lenses, current opinion will change.

I'm certainly no expert on economics, but I don't see how it can be denied that the economy truly prospered under Clinton, and that the US was viewed by the rest of the world in a far more favorable light.

I was completely disgusted by his lying and shenanigans, but sometimes I think I'd rather have Bill back in a second..and I wouldn't care if he was swinging from the WH chandeliers , then what we have now

The 1990s were an easy time when it came to problems overseas relative to now. The Cold War had ended before Clinton came into office which allowed for greater cuts in defense spending which is big part of the reason the USA achieved Surpluses in the late 1990s. Clinton had nothing to do with the Cold War and its ending though.

The Backlash against Clinton in 1994 and the election of the first Repulican congress in 40 years forced Clinton to be come more conservative in his domestic spending practices and to forget about a National Health Care Plan in favor of better economic growth through a balanced budget which was now possible with the Cold War over.

Clinton's impact on the economy is indeed there, but so is the Republican Congress's impact, the who changes in the World following the Cold War, and the sudden increase in productivity during the 1990s that happened independently of Government.

If Clinton had to face a continueing Cold War or a 9/11, the sunny economic times of the 1990s probably would not of been possible.